The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1887-07-16

the conditions of action, and the power
acting need not be the same. Wood
and nails are the conditions of the car
penter's activity, but they are not the
carpenter. They are material that he
must use in building house, but they
do not build the house. They are the
conditions, not the cause of work. Now
if the advocates of vital force should
claim there is constructive and direc-
tive force in the body, which, while
separate from the physical forces does
use them as agents in construction, and
function, what is there in Mr.. Spencer's
reasoning to disprove it (? I call life
vital force, because it produces vital
organisms, just as call that chemical
force which produces chemical COM
pounds. There is all the difference be-
tween thework of the two forces that
there is between a living child and
cake of soap. They do different work,
and are different forces.
Mr.. Huxley tells US that protoplasm is
the basis of life, and then says that life
is the only known source Of protoplasm.
Life must, therefore, be the basis Of it.
self, according to Mr.. Huxley. But
since there is no life without proto-
plasm, and no protoplasm without life,
the living organism must give life to
itself, and then create the protoplasm,
without which life could not exist.
This statement involves positive log
ical contradiction, and cannot be true.
There must have been previous Gre
alton of either the life or the proto-
plasm. Against this theory, or more
properly hypothesis of the identity of
the physical and vital force, there are
several unanswerable arguments grow
ing out of the great difference between
physical and vital phenomena.
In the first place, organic compounds
are all in state of unstable equilibrium
which mechanics and chemistry are
constantly seeking to destroy. So long
as life lasts, the equilibrium is main
tanned; as soon as it ceases the body is
reduced to mere stable inorganic COM
pounds. This looks as though life
were not a function of chemistry and me-
cbanics, but rather force which Is
in direct opposition to them.
2. Inorganic compounds have no
identity apart from the atoms that
compose them living beings maintain
their identity in the constant changes
Of their composition. The body of to-
day is not the body of last year or last
week, but it is the same living being.
There must be in the living organism
force or principle which has unity,
identity, and persistence to account for
this. Mechanical and chemical forces
produce no such results.
8. Another difference is this: Living
organisms feed. The vital force de-
mands uses, and appropriates food; me-
chanical and chemical forces do not.
4. The power in living organisms of
growth, reproduction and pro- creation
lift them above all mechanical and
chemical operations. This shows that
life is not of chemical origin. 1t was
not evolved from chemical forces, nor
by chemical processes. The only ra-
tional explanation of the origin of life
is, that it is creation. 1t is not the
result Of evolution, but Of divine action.
1t is supernatural in its origin. A di-
vine production. 1t was the manifes-
tation of new force. By it nature
was lifted to higher plane. 1t was
the writing Of a new chapter of Gods
gospel of nature. The beginning of a
new epoch in creation. 1t is new
manifestation of divine precedence and
power. A new revelation of wisdom,
goodness and love. 1t became the
basis of a new science, and made new
laws necessary.